Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division · 2009 · Torts

TortsExculpatory clausesPremises liabilityHealth clubsexculpatory agreementwaiver and releasefitness clubhealth club

Facts

Plaintiff joined Powerhouse Gym, signed its preprinted waiver and release form, and less than an hour later attended her first spinning class. The instructor helped set up plaintiff on a stationary bike, but during class the handlebars detached and plaintiff fell forward while her feet remained strapped into the pedals. Plaintiff sued, alleging failures in maintenance, warnings, instruction, training, and supervision, and also alleged reckless conduct. The waiver broadly disclaimed liability for injuries arising from use of equipment, participation in classes, sudden equipment malfunction, and the club's instruction, training, and supervision.

Issue

Whether the fitness club's preprinted exculpatory agreement was enforceable to bar plaintiff's personal-injury claims arising from a spinning-bike accident, and if so, whether it protected the club only from claims of ordinary negligence or also from more culpable conduct. The court also had to decide whether summary judgment was proper on this record.

Rule

A health club's exculpatory agreement may validly disclaim liability for ordinary negligence arising from a patron's use of exercise equipment in the course of athletic activity, but it cannot, as a matter of contract interpretation and public policy, shield the club from conduct more culpable than ordinary negligence, such as reckless, willful or wanton, or palpably unreasonable acts or omissions. Adhesive releases are strictly construed against the drafter, and ambiguities are resolved in favor of affording legal relief.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Maya Ortiz joined Summit Forge Fitness and signed a preprinted waiver stating that she released the club from liability for injuries arising from use of exercise equipment, participation in classes, and staff instruction and supervision. During a rowing class, a foot strap on a machine loosened because an employee had failed to notice routine wear during inspection, and Maya sued the club for negligence only.

Is Maya's claim against the club most likely barred?

Explanation. The majority held that a health club's exculpatory agreement, though adhesive, is enforceable to bar claims of ordinary negligence connected to a patron's use of exercise equipment in a class or other athletic activity. Here, the alleged failure to notice routine wear sounds in ordinary negligence, and the injury arose from exercise equipment used during a class. The fact that the form is adhesive does not automatically invalidate it, and a signed agreement need not be defeated merely because the patron did not read every term. (Derived from Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises (n.d.).)